I know HTML security is much much different than flash security when it comes to protecting the video from being copied. Its actually a huge issue with most streaming sites because HTML 5 provides a way of playing the video but no way of securing it. Many other competitors are having issues proving to the license holders that they can keep their video safe and free from piracy. Flash is just generally accepted as safe even if its not......

Flash's advantage is that its DRM will work the same on all platforms that support it. HTML5 does not have DRM as an universal feature on all platforms. The people who designed HTML5 did not want any (full-feature) DRM included in their product, and some of the browser makers had the same thought initially. This means that the DRM implementation differs from browser to browser, making it fairly complicated to create a player with DRM that will work on all of them in the same way.
The browser makers are also in disagreement which codec should be used for HTML5 streaming. Some push their own development, some of the options cost money, and some options may be easy victims for patent trolling.

You can tell by the adaption speed in actual use that is still very complicated to offer an HTML5 player.

I know HTML security is much much different than flash security when it comes to protecting the video from being copied. Its actually a huge issue with most streaming sites because HTML 5 provides a way of playing the video but no way of securing it. Many other competitors are having issues proving to the license holders that they can keep their video safe and free from piracy. Flash is just generally accepted as safe even if its not......

Flash's advantage is that its DRM will work the same on all platforms that support it. HTML5 does not have DRM as an universal feature on all platforms. The people who designed HTML5 did not want any (full-feature) DRM included in their product, and some of the browser makers had the same thought initially. This means that the DRM implementation differs from browser to browser, making it fairly complicated to create a player with DRM that will work on all of them in the same way.
The browser makers are also in disagreement which codec should be used for HTML5 streaming. Some push their own development, some of the options cost money, and some options may be easy victims for patent trolling.

You can tell by the adaption speed in actual use that is still very complicated to offer an HTML5 player.

"Flash, DRM, work" hahahahahaha! I could literally download everything CR offers right now if I wanted to.

You're twisting my statement there. I said that it will work the same on all platforms, meaning that you don't have to make any adjustments or work with an additional sandbox. Whether it is *effective* is a different story. Downloading video from pretty much every video streaming service is really easy, but that just isn't the point.

Check the mobile tab on the link you gave :x
Also check the long list of conditions for each of the things to work below both lists. You're basically proving my point there, it's a major clusterfuck.

SimbiAniwrote:It'd be easier if there was like just a website that could ~act as a flash viewer in the non-flash browser.

TheAncientOnewrote:Too bad the built-in browser wasn't Chrome, so that you could use Beardfist's extension that allows it to play back CR HLS streams.

Well, it's ~a version of Chrome, supposedly, but as a "smart" browser it doesn't seem capable of adding extensions. Is that really possible?

I've visited the Flash-to-HTML5 extension's page & can read about the add-on, but don't see any method of implementing it (no "install here" buttons, etc). If there is a workaround for specifically smart browsers (such as this on an LG tv), that I haven't been able to find in searches yet, I'd be grateful for any step-by-step instructions..

Because usually most anything that leads to a more "computer-like" function (dL or upload links, etc) results in a pop-up msg such as "File Downloading Not Supported" anyways. Too bad there isn't a version of ~FlashFox in the LG store either, lol..

SimbiAniwrote:
Well, it's ~a version of Chrome, supposedly, but as a "smart" browser it doesn't seem capable of adding extensions. Is that really possible?

I've visited the Flash-to-HTML5 extension's page & can read about the add-on, but don't see any method of implementing it (no "install here" buttons, etc). If there is a workaround for specifically smart browsers (such as this on an LG tv), that I haven't been able to find in searches yet, I'd be grateful for any step-by-step instructions..

Because usually most anything that leads to a more "computer-like" function (dL or upload links, etc) results in a pop-up msg such as "File Downloading Not Supported" anyways. Too bad there isn't a version of ~FlashFox in the LG store either, lol..

The following is my personal opinion:

It's less of hassle to just buy a cheap dongle, such as a Chromecast or a Roku stick. The Chromecast in particular is a much more "future save" device than any Smart TV.
Smart TVs become outdated very quickly, similar to smartphones. But as there are much less Smart TVs out there compared to smartphones, it is a lot less viable to create apps for them and keeping those in working condition, as even the makers will not provide updates for the OSes or firmware for extended period of time. They actually want you to buy a new devices every 2 years.
If you want a good example of that, look how often Google stops supporting certain Smart TV/home entertainment devices for their Youtube app. Things don't normally last for very long there.

Thanks shinryu, I'd only vaguely heard of "dongles" & have never been clear on them or other additional supplies for streaming in general. I just have used the BluRay player for so long, & a basic semi-smart TiVo even before the BRP ("cut the cord" on that over a year ago) so I never needed anything else really, & getting extra hardware for a single app always has been beyond my budget overall. But I will look into it! Time for more research..

My tv itself was chosen mainly for its quality & other features- I wasn't overly concerned about its smart capabilities since I am so attached to the BluRay's design in apps & remote at this point (tech issues aside, it's got great layouts in various ways). And usually whatever I commit to, I always plan to keep much longer than just a few years, hehe. I will likely still be sticking with my Galaxy S3 long after they've come out with S10 or whatever is next by then.

But the LG's "magic remote", while rather illogical for videos (lack of typical play/pause/etc buttons), got me hooked on the browser, since it works like a mouse. Thus discovering the ~potential to watch CRoll via the smart browser- cut short by lack of flash. Oh well xP

Could you clarify the Google / YouTube / smart devices cmt? Do you mean Google does not update its "smart" non-mobile versions of YT? Altho I ~have noticed the differences from device to device for other apps, ie LG's version of Hulu still has the Queue (yess) instead of Watchlist (which is already on the Samsung version), I haven't noticed any obvious differences with YT. But it's very interesting to consider..

Shouldn't html5 be looked into more seriously? I believe its in Chrome Canary that flash is removed all together, soon it will be stable, and others will probably follow. Why can't they just have html5 support similar to youtube, funimation and netflix.

It's this time of week already? Nope none. They paid licensing for flash rights not HTML5

I highly doubt that. Licensing rights are for streaming in general, not Flash specifically. That's why Crunchyroll works on phones and Rokus etc that don't use Flash. Mainly what's needed now is regular computers.